W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2016

RE: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:48:54 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
CC: "daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A9D999768@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>


>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, 21 June, 2016 05:07
>To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
>Cc: daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com; public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>(was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
>
>
>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 22:59 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daniel Glazman
>>> [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:45 PM
>>> To: public-w3process@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee
>>> Representatives (was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2016 21:54, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't need to put in the Process document exactly how the Team
>>>> gets the
>>> information from the AC.  They can use a mail list, or an online
>>> form, or however they tell the AC how to indicate they support the
>>> request to have an AC vote on the appeal.  We don't need to have that
>level of detail in the Process document.
>>>
>>> Wow. We're discussing an Appeal process and you think such a lose way
>>> of doing things would not attract, with a precise 5% threshold, a
>>> deep and fine review? I am thinking exactly the contrary, we're
>>> dealing here with one of our worst possible scenarios and we have to
>>> fence it off _very_ precisely to avoid any contestation.
>>>
>>> </Daniel>
>>
>> The current text of the relevant paragraph of 7.2 says, "An Advisory
>> Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the
>Team (explained in detail in the New Member Orientation). The Team must
>announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide an
>address for comments from Advisory Committee representatives. The
>archive of these comments must be Member-visible. If, within one week of
>the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support
>the appeal request, the Team must organize an appeal vote asking the
>Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision."
>>
>> As has been previously noted the last sentence does not define the
>balloting period (4 weeks as usual) nor how the vote will be assessed (the
>majority of votes decides). These changes were proposed in the changes
>specified in Suggested Changes to clarify Appeals in the W3C Process
>Document [1].
>>
>> I believe that Daniel is correct in saying that the sentences, " The Team
>must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide
>an address for comments from Advisory Committee representatives. The
>archive of these comments must be Member-visible. " are also lacking in
>detail.
>>
>> I would suggest the following:
>>
>> "Within one week, the Team MUST announce the appeal to the Advisory
>Committee and provide place for the Advisory Committee representatives to
>respond with (1) a statement of support (yes, no or abstain) and (2)
>comments, as desired. The archive of these responses MUST be Member-
>visible.”
>
>That’s fine. The process should also define the period (I was going to say
>minimum period, but that would allow the gathering-5% stage to be
>indefinite.

That was dropped in this rewrite, it was " If, within one week of the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request," so it was a 1 week period to gather the 5%.   The person making initiating the appeal could post directly to the AC and there could be a set email list to post support - then the 1 week clock could start when they make the request.

>
>>
>> I believe that this clarifies the requirements for responding without either
>defining what mechanism is to be used to seek the responses nor over-
>specifying what the Team must do. In particular it would allow a WBS to be
>used as long as it had a comment field.
>>
>> One interesting sub-issue has to do with the announcement of the appeal.
>Should that use (or at least include) the text that that appellant provided to
>with his appeal request? I think it should certainly include the appellant's
>text, but may also have information provided by the Team.
>
>I think it should simply state what the appellant says. The time for
>interpretation is past if we’re into appeals.
>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.htm

>> l
>>
>> Steve Z
>
>Dave Singer
>
>singer@mac.com
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 18:49:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 June 2016 18:49:41 UTC